BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 207305 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#180963 Dec 2, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
LRS wasn't nitpicking. He was out in left field calculating something else totally irrelevant. Indeed, if the increase had been, say, 300%, according to LRS it would only be 25%. LRS is so innumerate that he doesn't realize his math calculates a smaller percentage the larger the increase. He's mathematically an imbecile.
You clowns are looking real foolish. Really, even for you two! LMAO! Simple math blows them out of the water, and they call themselves geniuses!!!!! LMAO! Not a chance in hell. LMAO!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#180964 Dec 2, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The sad illiterate twerp thinks that's a rebuttal.
Please explain to the class how in 14 months, if the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, lack of the "nuclear option" for Democrats would affect Obama's appointments. Puh-lease! That was the point, MORON.
<quoted text>
Damn, already I have to correct you again! That was "your" point, not mine. Moron.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#180965 Dec 2, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
And these percentages are still skewed. Do you really think simple math is that hard? Bush spent 4.4 in 8 years, Obobblehead has run up 6+ in 5 years. These numbers tell the story, Mr. BS! DUH!!! Hell, you probably don't see your error! LMAO!!!
What a sad little twerp. Here's his arse backwards comment:
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
5.6T is 76% of 10.025T? 66% is also incorrect. Only a DIM!!!!!
No, Moron, 5.6T isn't 76% of 10.025T. The real question is why did you think an increase of 4.351T relative to 5.674T involves "76% of 10.025T".

Flat out stupid.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Dufus, the increase was 76.7%, not 76%. I know math is not a birfoon strength.
If you need a math lesson I'll show you how to calculate it.
BTW, Dufus, did you score in the top 7% of college graduates in quantitative thinking? Didn't think so.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#180966 Dec 2, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, already I have to correct you again! That was "your" point, not mine. Moron.
Which dull boy has failed to rebut. Duh!

(Hence "The sad illiterate twerp thinks that's a rebuttal.")
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The sad illiterate twerp thinks that's a rebuttal.
Please explain to the class how in 14 months, if the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, lack of the "nuclear option" for Democrats would affect Obama's appointments. Puh-lease! That was the point, MORON.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#180967 Dec 2, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You clowns are looking real foolish. Really, even for you two! LMAO! Simple math blows them out of the water, and they call themselves geniuses!!!!! LMAO! Not a chance in hell. LMAO!
Simple math blows the Bayou twerp out of the water. Now can he please explain to the class why 10.026 T should be the divisor?

Innumerate twerp: "5.6T is 76% of 10.025T? 66% is also incorrect. Only a DIM!!!!!"

DUH! He fails Middle School math. Pathetic.

Would you like a lesson on how to calculate the percentage increase? It's really easy.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
LRS wasn't nitpicking. He was out in left field calculating something else totally irrelevant. Indeed, if the increase had been, say, 300%, according to LRS it would only be 25%. LRS is so innumerate that he doesn't realize his math calculates a smaller percentage the larger the increase. He's mathematically an imbecile.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#180968 Dec 2, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
What a sad little twerp. Here's his arse backwards comment:
<quoted text>
No, Moron, 5.6T isn't 76% of 10.025T. The real question is why did you think an increase of 4.351T relative to 5.674T involves "76% of 10.025T".
Flat out stupid.
<quoted text>
It's not use, wojar. I'm no mathematician, but I get it. It's so fundamental . But he does not. Why's that?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#180969 Dec 2, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
What a sad little twerp. Here's his arse backwards comment:
<quoted text>
No, Moron, 5.6T isn't 76% of 10.025T. The real question is why did you think an increase of 4.351T relative to 5.674T involves "76% of 10.025T".
Flat out stupid.
<quoted text>
I know exactly what the 76% is, dumbazz. Why do you think I brought up the base values? R U Dense?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#180970 Dec 2, 2013
4.4 in 8 or 6+ in 5? LMAO! You don't have a leg to stand on. Other than some skewed numbers. LMAO! Typical DIM!!!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#180971 Dec 2, 2013
Twaddle that for awhile, grasshut slumlord! LMAO! I'll check back and see if you two have figured it out. Cya twit boys!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#180972 Dec 2, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I know exactly what the 76% is, dumbazz. Why do you think I brought up the base values? R U Dense?
Look at the little twerp in denial. Why did he think the 76% had anything to do with 76% of 10.025 T. Why oh why? Because he's an innumerate twerp.

Twerp: "5.6T is 76% of 10.025T? 66% is also incorrect. Only a DIM!!!!!"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Do the math moron.(10.025-5.674)/5.674 X 100 = DUH!

It's 76.7%, jackass. You know it now that the egg is all over your face.

This denial is as dumb as LRS's "Harvard Study" fiasco. Hilarious.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
What a sad little twerp. Here's his arse backwards comment:
<quoted text>
No, Moron, 5.6T isn't 76% of 10.025T. The real question is why did you think an increase of 4.351T relative to 5.674T involves "76% of 10.025T".
Flat out stupid.
<quoted text>
Truth Detector

Louisville, KY

#180973 Dec 2, 2013
Bombshell! What America should have known already,
No security ever built into Obamacare site: Hacker
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101068119

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#180974 Dec 2, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
4.4 in 8 or 6+ in 5? LMAO! You don't have a leg to stand on. Other than some skewed numbers. LMAO! Typical DIM!!!
Innumerate twerp: "5.6T is 76% of 10.025T? 66% is also incorrect. Only a DIM!!!!!"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#180975 Dec 2, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
5.6T is 76% of 10.025T? 66% is also incorrect. Only a DIM!!!!!
WOW!

Just WOW.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#180976 Dec 2, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
4.4 in 8 or 6+ in 5? LMAO! You don't have a leg to stand on. Other than some skewed numbers. LMAO! Typical DIM!!!
Irrelevant.

1. Bayou twerp disputed the 76% figure because he unwittingly believed the correct percentage should be calculated from 5.6/10.0. He was caught red handed being ignorant and stupid.

2. 4.4 in 8 vs 6+ in 5 is also irrelevant. The rates of change in the debt for the last two fiscal years of Bush budgets were +5.41% and +7.51%, respectively. These were the highest rates of change since Bush's +4.90% in 2002, which was in turn the highest since Papa Bush's +3.35% in 1990. The rates of change under each fiscal year of Budgets following GW Bush's are -4.94%,-4.81%, and -0.43%. Notice the negative signs? Duh! That means Obama has managed to slow down the out of control train after Dubya handed over the controls.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#180977 Dec 2, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at the little twerp in denial. Why did he think the 76% had anything to do with 76% of 10.025 T. Why oh why? Because he's an innumerate twerp.
Twerp: "5.6T is 76% of 10.025T? 66% is also incorrect. Only a DIM!!!!!"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Do the math moron.(10.025-5.674)/5.674 X 100 = DUH!
It's 76.7%, jackass. You know it now that the egg is all over your face.
This denial is as dumb as LRS's "Harvard Study" fiasco. Hilarious.
<quoted text>
Forget it, wojar. He's dumb, a nitwit and this is not the first time he stupidly corrects a superior being and then falls flat on his face, which makes him twist and turn even more. That's when the ad hominem comes out, well, just look at the vocabulary in last few posts, namely : Mr. BS, clowns, dumbazz (2), slumlord, twit boys, DIM, squid and fool. All that in less than 2 pages and confined to debt percentage posts only. So much apoplexy when he's wrong.

Oh, BTW, birther clown decided he'd like to be mocked some more, decided to totally misinterpret the verb "plagiarized". It doesn't get any better than that.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#180978 Dec 2, 2013
...or the word "plagiarism".

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#180979 Dec 2, 2013
LRS : still waiting to be shown where I spoke ill of the dead (your mom?) and Jesus. Will you be informing me at the same time you'll be revealing why you wrote "Can you see us coming" daily for a whole month prior to Nov 2012 and then stopped suddenly after Obama won...yet again? Waiting, eh boy.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#180980 Dec 2, 2013
Under Roe v. Wade, the USSC came down on the side of privacy (when it comes health care), you really have to see the following.

http://adask.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/obamaca...

Now, which USSC ruling do we follow and when will life insurance be a requirement? I wonder if the government will be the beneficiary.

Just a though!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#180981 Dec 2, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant.
1. Bayou twerp disputed the 76% figure because he unwittingly believed the correct percentage should be calculated from 5.6/10.0. He was caught red handed being ignorant and stupid.
2. 4.4 in 8 vs 6+ in 5 is also irrelevant. The rates of change in the debt for the last two fiscal years of Bush budgets were +5.41% and +7.51%, respectively. These were the highest rates of change since Bush's +4.90% in 2002, which was in turn the highest since Papa Bush's +3.35% in 1990. The rates of change under each fiscal year of Budgets following GW Bush's are -4.94%,-4.81%, and -0.43%. Notice the negative signs? Duh! That means Obama has managed to slow down the out of control train after Dubya handed over the controls.
Damn boy, you are an idiot. Bush added 4.4T over 8 years. That's roughly 500B a year. Obobblehead has added 6+T in 5 years. That's over 1T a year. Can you see the rate of change? LMAO! DUH! R U on drugs? R U on LSD? HUH? LMAO! DAB!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#180982 Dec 2, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
LRS : still waiting to be shown where I spoke ill of the dead (your mom?) and Jesus. Will you be informing me at the same time you'll be revealing why you wrote "Can you see us coming" daily for a whole month prior to Nov 2012 and then stopped suddenly after Obama won...yet again? Waiting, eh boy.
Why do you need to be shown every post of yours that gets brought up? Do you have no memory? You know and so do I, what you've said, on more than one occasion too. Like I've said, you're a real piece of work, Path. You're a peon and you're too stupid to figure out why! LMAO!!!

Tip for the fruitcake: When you run too many puppets, you can't keep up with all of them! LMAO! Share some of your transparency with Obobblehead, will ya? LMAO!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 20 min Earthling-1 57,147
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr OzRitz 1,345,584
News Pro-Rape Men's Group's Plans Meeting in Chicago 2 hr Big Peter 3
News Teen Charged After Pouring Boiling Water on Cat... 2 hr Big Peter 1
Ask Amy 2-5-16 2 hr Nukeybaby 8
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr They cannot kill ... 7,264
last post wins! (Apr '13) 2 hr They cannot kill ... 588
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages